Full zoom with macro lens. What's wrong?

[sprain]

I was told not to use the full zoom when using macro lens. I tried during my last trip and managed to get really close up shots of subjects. Does the full zoom distort the quality of the pictures? I'm using the Canon S1 IS with 10x zoom.

Here are a couple of shots as an example.

 

[alcina]

There's nothing wrong with using full zoom - as you've illustrated so well - if you can get it to work.

The problems are, in a nutshell:
- difficult to achieve sharp focus where you want it because
- the more you zoom the less your depth of field becomes.

Often you can get better results be pulling the zoom back just a hair - not because the photo will be better necessarily, but because it's easier to achieve focus! And you can increase your depth of field to get more of your subject in focus - whether that is desirable or not depends on the shot you were going for. When in doubt, do both!

Hope this short and over-simplified note helps!

I'd say keep doing what you are doing...experiment, read & look at the rules, then create your own!

 

[Wolverine]

Totally agree with Alcina. I tend to pull back the zoom a notch so that I can get focus. I don't want to have to spend 15mins at a subject just because I could not get focus. Having greater depth of field makes it easier to get a sharp photo off. And cropping PS helps with getting the right composition.

 

[ssra30]

Full zoom is alright if you can do it. Like other said, depth of field is reduced with higher zoom power. Also macro mode or macro lens will reduce depth of field as well. Higher zoom power will also be more sensitive to motion artifact. I am a bit unclear about the spec but if I am not mistaken 10X zoom on your camera is actually a 3x optical zoom and 3.2x digital zoom, is that correct?
If it is 10x optical zoom then ignore what I am saying next. I would only use optical zoom as digital zoom is basically nothing more than the camera doing the in camera cropping of the original picture for you. Photoshop will do much better job at cropping and enlarging the picture than in-camera software.

 

[sprain]

Thanks for all the clarification. Hopefully, I can get to practise my photography again real soon

ssra30 - it is 10x optical zoom.

 

[sprain]

And this is probably one example the full zoom doesn't work. I can't get a clear focus on this after many tries, and can't get it in the centre.

 

[TeddyDiver]

And this is probably one example the full zoom doesn't work. I can't get a clear focus on this after many tries, and can't get it in the centre

Close up pictures work as mentioned above, just like "normal" pictures having better depth of field with wide angle. Real macro however comes when the target/exposure scale exceeds 2/1 to the scales 1/10 (target still visible for naked eye) below that starts microscopic field.
In macro photographs the most important factors are scale and iris, and depth of field is calculated by these (5 to 0,001mm)
Calling close up cameras as "macro" is misleading.

 

[ssra30]

Real macro however comes when the target/exposure scale exceeds 2/1 to the scales 1/10 (target still visible for naked eye) below that starts microscopic field.
In macro photographs the most important factors are scale and iris, and depth of field is calculated by these (5 to 0,001mm)
Calling close up cameras as "macro" is misleading.

Hmmm... I am not sure which definition/standard do you use. Your wording may be a bit ambiguous as well.
Do you mean to say that real macro scale should be 2:1 to 10:1 reproduction ratio? 1:10 is hardly what I would consider macro and the pictures here definitely showed something significantly smaller than 1:10 reproduction.
In normal photography, what I would consider to be high quality/professional level lenses by Canon/Nikon SLR such as 60mm macro, 105mm macro lens will do 1:1. dSLR with cropped sensor and added diopter/teleconverter will do something closer to 2:1 reproduction but hardly anywhere near 10:1.
But if 2:1-10:1 is the proper range for macro photography, I don't think 99.99% of what most people would conventionally call macro would be in this category and is pretty much not achievable without some very exotic and specialized equipment.

 

[sprain]

Totally agree with Alcina. I tend to pull back the zoom a notch so that I can get focus. I don't want to have to spend 15mins at a subject just because I could not get focus. Having greater depth of field makes it easier to get a sharp photo off. And cropping PS helps with getting the right composition.

What I do is, I use manual focus. Set it to full zoom, or could be anything other than full zoom, and move my camera back and forth until the subject is in focus.

Problem with full zoom is that since it's magnified, movements are too, so it becomes really difficult unless I am able to fix my position...plant my camera on the bottom etc.

Still, like you all said, it's really difficult. Once I think I moved too close to subject, so have to arch my back to get further away because I'm firmly planted at the bottom and too lazy to readjust...was quite a strain on my back...

In the end, just pulled the zoom back a little...

One instance of roughly what happens....really managed to get more in focus, and it's definitely easier...

 

[sprain]

Hmmm... I am not sure which definition/standard do you use. Your wording may be a bit ambiguous as well.
Do you mean to say that real macro scale should be 2:1 to 10:1 reproduction ratio? 1:10 is hardly what I would consider macro and the pictures here definitely showed something significantly smaller than 1:10 reproduction.
In normal photography, what I would consider to be high quality/professional level lenses by Canon/Nikon SLR such as 60mm macro, 105mm macro lens will do 1:1. dSLR with cropped sensor and added diopter/teleconverter will do something closer to 2:1 reproduction but hardly anywhere near 10:1.
But if 2:1-10:1 is the proper range for macro photography, I don't think 99.99% of what most people would conventionally call macro would be in this category and is pretty much not achievable without some very exotic and specialized equipment.

Getting a little confused here.......hehheh...